POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

Recent email exchange with a mathmatics and statics expert in reverse engineering data...

QUOTE

Rob,

I posted a little analysis I did based on the FDR data and it suggests that my hypothetical was indeed what was done to the data. I’ve demonstrated it to my satisfaction and I’ll leave the rest in your capable hands. My guess is the simulation was done before the data alteration (that is why in the video it flies north of the Citgo station). To be honest, they really did do a sloppy job in the alteration and I would expect better from our civil servants. The guy who did the work should be fired for not doing a sanity check before releasing it.

Does it compare, as well as how does the whole set compare with the NTSB?

NTSB Tabular9:37:44 70 (MAG)

Interesting.

I always suspected the heading was altered throughout the original csv data to try and match it with the physical damage and end of path. But working back from the impact hole based on true course.. it never really lines up 'perfectly'.

Now that it appears the end heading is 1 more degree off, it further conflicts with the physical damage path.

Why would I ever throw any of this out. Ever. That's not what I meant.

Concluding that part of the data is manipulated will throw into question the validity of all the data. I think it simply goes back to the logic between the extreme cases of 100% fake/planted and 100% real/authentic.

And when I say would/should/could I mean 'or' between thoses words. There are nine modal verbs in English: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, will, and would.

Why would I ever throw any of this out. Ever. That's not what I meant.

Concluding that part of the data is manipulated will throw into question the validity of all the data. I think it simply goes back to the logic between the extreme cases of 100% fake/planted and 100% real/authentic.

Well. .we already know for a fact the animation was manipulated regarding altitude and altimeter setting on the descent to make the animation aircraft appear lower than actual. That conclusion is concrete.

Of course we wont be throwing anything out regarding this information. Its possible the whole thing was fabricated as i have said many times before..

And now we know that the csv file was manipulated to make the aircraft appear as if it was approaching the pentagon from the south path...

But.. if it were all fabricated.. its as alarming as it being accurate and a conclusion of it all being fabricated should definitely not be dismissed.

We have no doubt that there is definitely a cover-up involved regarding this data... now we just need to determine if there was complicity. Questioning the govt and holding their feet to the fire based on this information will help us determine if some within the govt were complicit.

Does it compare, as well as how does the whole set compare with the NTSB?

NTSB Tabular9:37:44 70 (MAG)

Interesting.

I always suspected the heading was altered throughout the original csv data to try and match it with the physical damage and end of path. But working back from the impact hole based on true course.. it never really lines up 'perfectly'.

Now that it appears the end heading is 1 more degree off, it further conflicts with the physical damage path.

Thanks UT!

Forgot to post this picture here to show how the physical damage does not line up with the "61.2 degrees" found in the csv file.

It appears we now know why it doenst line up 'perfectly'. They didnt take their time altering the csv file to make it show the southern approach and line up with the physical damage..

Above picture shows right wing would have never hit pole 1 on the CSV path of 61.2 degrees.

A group of data (such as UA93 FDR data) without special circumstances will generally tend to form a normal population (Gaussian distribution). In some populations a special cause affects it and the distribution becomes shifted (as with the AA77 FDR data).

All that really means is that it is under the influence of something which makes it different from what would be commonly expected. For example, the UA93 roll data is fairly well distributed (maximum and minimum values same magnitude and quantity) and centered on zero. That is what I would expect to see. In the case of AA77, the roll angle has a shift in the data with both the median and mean not centered on zero. Or in other words, for some reason in the case of AA77, it shows an extremely disproportionate number of roll angle values in magnitude and quantity towards the positive end of the scale.

I’m sure there could be a lot of reasons for the shift in the data, although it appears in latitude and longitude, roll angle, and several other variables. Since the shift in the longitude is definitely something that can be compared with known values, there is no doubt that it exists and there is no reason to believe that the shifts in the other values exist as well.

Why the data is shifted is beyond my meager mental capacity to even render any guess that I would be able to support, so I won’t. I think Rob has suggested a “calibration error”, but I’m not sure that accounts for the roll angles being shifted. Whether the special cause that is creating the shifts is intentional or some unknown processing error is something only the NTSB can address. Unfortunately, they are not telling.